HAND AND MACHINE LABOR
Hand and Machine Labor (Thirteenth Annual Report of the
Commissioner of Labor, 1898, Vols. I and II, Wash.,
1899.105)
[A very interesting and original work, invaluable on the
question of hand and machine production. Quantity of
working time, the number of operations and the number of
different workers in hand and machine labor, and also labor
costs are compared by article produced or work accomplished
(“unit”—altogether 672 units). In each unit the same data
are given separately for each operation. Unfortunately, the
data are excessively fragmented, and there is no attempt
to summarise, or to give any general numerical, even if
only approximate, conclusions.
cf. p. 93: the general conclusion on agriculture:
“The aggregates presented by these 27 units necessarily
vary very much with the crop produced, and the gains made
by the supplanting of primitive methods by modern ones
are quite different in different instances. With the exception
noted in unit 22 there is a gain in each case, and in some
instances, as in units 3 and 26, it is very large, though of
course not comparable with those found in the manufactur-
ing industries. An average deduced from the 27 units here
reported shows that one man with the improved machinery
in use to-day can cultivate and harvest nearly twice as large
a crop as was possible under the primitive method.”
(These 27 units—production of apple trees, wheat, cotton,
barley, berries, tobacco, potatoes, etc. In Volume One,
each unit is divided into operations.)


In general, the number of operations is much greater in
machine production (division of labour! e.g., boots and
shoes: 45-102 operations in hand production, and 84-173
in machine production), but in agriculture it may sometimes
(perhaps more often) be vice versa). Reason: the combination
of several operations in machine production. E.g, unit
27, wheat, 20 bushels (1 acre).
Hand method 8 operations
machine ” —5 ”
motive power
hand:
ox and hand
Ia—breaking ground
Ib—sowing seed
Ic—pulverising topsoil and cover-
 ing seed
machine:
I—breaking ground, sowing and
covering seed, and pulverising top-
N.B.
soil (gangplow, seeder, and harrow
—motive power: steam).
1597 pp.
See examples on separate sheet.*
in the two
volumes
Information on separate operations is an excellent illustra-
tion of the d i v i s i o n o f l a b o u r. A pity that no
effort is made to summarise for some of the “units”.
Another thing that should be done is to sum up the number
of operations (and % of operations) with motive power other
than hands.
There are no summaries on average ages of workers (and
sex) under hand and machine labour.
No summaries on wages under hand and machine labour.
All this can (and should) be calculated by number of
units and number of operations. Otherwise, there remains
nothing but examples, illustrations.
* See pp. 284-88.—Ed.
]
^
PMQ
PMQ


⋆


From H a n d a n d
Some examples from “Summary of
Description
Name
Quantity
Hand
Machine

Apple trees Apple trees 32 months from grafts 10,000 (1 acre)

Onions
Onions
Onions
250 (1 acre)
bush.

Wheat
Wheat
Wheat
20 (1 acre)
(bush.)

Boots
Men’s cheap grade, etc.
100 pairs

Bread
1—pound loaves bread
1,000

Wheels
Carriage wheels, etc.
1 set (4)

Trousers
Cottonade trousers, etc.
12 dozen pairs

Cottonades
apparently a grade of fabric
500 yards
Text (Vol. I) contains only explanatory notes for each
unit separately, so that nothing is summarised.
(A very important thing for a detailed study of the divi-
sion of labour in s e p a r a t e units, the role of machines
in separate operations, the importance of workers,’
skills, and the English names of these skills. But all this
is rough and raw, a handbook, and no more.)
It is very important to point out that for an adequately
exact comparison of the level of technology in the various
systems of production there must be precisely a b r e a k-
d o w n b y o p e r a t i o n s. That is the only scientific
method. It would give such a great deal in application to
agriculture!
The same Report, as on the previous page—Vols,. VI
and VII deal with the cost of production. Two great volumes
give the most detailed figures on each of the hundreds of
enterprises studied for production costs, materials, wages,
etc., and then the cost of living with budgets, level of labour
productivity, etc. Unfortunately all of this is absolutely
raw stuff, and almost useless without processing (except
possibly for occasional references). Strangely enough, the
authors of these works make no attempt at all to summarise
or draw any general conclusions, however few!
T
N
N
N
N
N
M
N
N
N
N
N
U
T
N
N
N
N
N
M
N
N
N
N
N
U
T
N
N
N
N
N
M
N
N
N
N
N
U
Unit
num-
ber


M a c h i n e L a b o r
production by hand and machine methods”:
Year of
Different
Different
Labor cost
production
operations
workmen
Time worked
($)
performed
employed
hand machine


1,240.4
870.24
193.5
111.6


1850
1895


433.55
223.23
30.8
22.3


64.15
2.58
3.7
0.7


1859
1895


1,436.40
154.6
408.5
35.4

1897
1897


8.56
5.6
1.5

1860
1895


4.23
9.3
0.7

1870
1895


1,440
148.30

24.4

1893
1895


7,534.1
84.14
135.6
6.8

This is from Vol. I—General table, introduction and
analysis.
In Vol. II, there is nothing but tables for each operation
in each unit. Here is a sampling of the table headings in
Vol. II: 1) operation number; 2) work done (description
of each operation); 3) machine, implement or tool used
(in each operation separately); 4) motive power (hand,
foot, horse, ox, steam, electricity, etc.); 5) persons neces-
sary on one machine; 6) employees at work on the unit—
number and sex (of the workers);—occupation (skill or
shop);—age (of workers);—time worked;—pay of labour
(rate per— —)—labour cost (rate by time worked or by
pieces in case of piece rates).
e.g. No.  4 1 . Hand labour: 3 housewives (only female)
worked at odd hours, 5 0 y e a r s; no machines.
Machine production: mostly steam frames and machines.
Working 11 hours a day. Ages from 10 years (sic!) to 50
years. Both male and female.
Or No. 27 (wheat). Hand labour: hand, oxen, 4 labourers,
21-30 years. Plow, sickles, flails, shovels.
hand
machine
hand
machine
hand
machine
hour
minutes
hour
minutes
hand
machine
Unit
number


Machine production: gangplow, seeder, combined reaper
and thresher. Steam and horse. 1 0 employees (all special-
ists: engineer, fireman, water hauler, separator man, header
tender, sack sewers, sack fillers teamsters).
Let’s try to take the results for 27 units (agriculture):
Σ=7 acres of
diverse crops
Number of
Number of
Years
different
different
Time worked
Labour cost
operations
workers
hrs mins
$
1829-1872
hand


9,758
1,037.5
1893-1896
machine

1,439
5,107
597.8
Determining the number of different work-
ers with the exception of No. 14 (onions),
hand—28, machine 675, we get:
hand—338
machine—764
subtracting also apple trees (No. 2),
hand—37, machine—125, and No. 19
(strawberries), hand—32, machine—156,
we get:
hand—269
machine—583, still more than double!
Of the 27 units only in one case (No. 22, tobacco) is the
time worked and labour cost higher for machine labour
(199 and 353 hours; $5. 9 and 30.2). The author observes:
“Unit 22 is unique in that the total time at the later date
was nearly twice that at the earlier, a fact for which no
other explanation appears than that previously offered”
(p. 93); page 91: “The methods used at the two periods differ
so largely that no comparison can be made.”
Written in the autumn of 1904
First printed in the
Printed from the original
Fourth Russian edition
of the Collected Works
TNNNMNNNU

ANALYSIS OF L. HUSCHKE’S DATA106
(ON SMALL-SCALE AGRICULTURE)
Huschke (on small-scale agriculture)
Wheat
% going on feed*
and rye
as feed
oats
barley
%
5.84 Small farm
67.0
(p. 52)
35.0
77.7
20.5
9.09 Medium farm I
72.39
(p. 75)
12.22
68.31
13.90
29.56 Medium farm II
54.01
(p. 93)
52.59
75.91
46.52
3.55 Big farm
82.72
(p. 112)
11.81
74.70
24.08
(p. 165)
Σ=574.72÷8=71.84%
Σ=216.62÷8=27.08%
* Top figures in each column are for 1887-1891, lower figures, for 1893-
1897.—Ed.


Hence, data on feed:
(average amount for decade)
Head
Cereals
Feed
Outlays
ha
of
double
area
of feed
under
cattle
centners
ha
marks
oats
Small farm

47.5
5.5


4.3
0.50

Medium farm I


15.5
1,290
7.6
4.5
0.53

Medium farm II

203.5
12.0

6.9
8.1
0.48

Big farm


42.1
3,226
8.9
2.7
0.63

Σ=132
565.5
75.1

0.57
below = average per head of cattle*
For a precise calculation of the area under feed on each
farm, the quantities of four cereals (wheat, rye, barley and oats)
fed to the livestock should be given in terms of h e c t a r e s,
(1) the grain sown should be subtracted from the total crop;
(2) the net crop obtained should be divided by the number
of hectares under each cereal; (3) the number of double
centners fed to the livestock should be divided by the quo-
tient thus obtained.
This is too cumbersome a calculation for the four cereals,
the four farms, and the two five-year periods.
On the other hand, the error could not be too great
if we take all the oats as being feed, for the oats not
going into feed are balanced out by the barley going into
feed.
* This sentence was subsequently pencilled in over the table heading;
it refers to the lower figures in columns 2, 3 and 4.—Ed.


Hence, let us assume that the whole area under oats is
area under feed: (i.e., oats & mixture & all the fodder
grasses & wheat).
Total area
under feed
Small farm
7.5
0.68
Medium farm I
23.1
0.79
Medium farm II
18.9
0.76
Big farm
51.0
0.76
Σ=100.50
0.75
The difference is not due to any difference in rates, but to
Huschke’s very detailed classification of cattle. He makes
a distinction between foals, young cattle, calves, suckling-
pigs (p. 53, Note 1), whereas I am unable to take account
of these minute distinctions from the data of the general
agricultural census of June 12, 1907.
This means that for a comparison, Huschke’s data
N.B.
should be converted into the terms of the June 12,
1907 data, i.e., a l l horses, and a l l cattle =
1.0; a l l pigs = 4; a l l sheep = 0.
We then have:
ha under
feed
Small farm . . .
13.45
head of
7.5
average for
Medium farm I
.
31.85
cattle
23.1
10 (8) years
Medium farm II .
36.81
”
18.9
Big farm . . . .
88.8
”
51.0
170.91
100.50
0.58
These data show such (rel-
atively) stable averages that
they can apparently be re-
lied upon: 0.75 ha per head
of cattle. But for a compa-
rison with the statistical data
for the whole of Germany, it
should be taken into account
that Huschke’s calculation of
cattle is d i f f e r e n t from
mine.
]
]
]
]


and for the whole of Germany (1907)—13,648,628 ha of feed
(meadows & fodder plants & oats & mixed cereals) for
29,380,405 head of cattle, i.e., 0.46 per head.
This looks very much like being true, because Huschke’s
farmers are (very) g o o d.
From Huschke’s data follow these conclusions
1) the big farm spends much more on artificial fertiliser
(p. 1 4 4)
2)
”
”
”
has a much deeper ploughing (p. 1 5 ,
N o t e )
3)
”
”
”
is better equipped with dead stock
4)
”
”
”
ensures the greatest crop increase in time
5)
”
”
”
feeds livestock better
6)
”
”
”
spends more on insurance (p. 139)
7)
”
”
”
obtains a better price for its products
(p. 1 4 6) (p. 1 5 5).
1887-91 1893-97
(p. 139)
cf.
To 1) p e r h a. Small farm
17.18
16.91—
p. 144
Medium farm 40.48 32.60—
22.80 20.74—
Big farm
41.34 48.95&
To 3) A list of stock, p. 1 0 7 et al., p. 47.
Outlays on maintenance of dead stock, buildings
and drainage in marks per ha.
1887-91
1893-97
Small farm
14.10
7.43
—6.67
Medium farm
13.38
15.95
&2.57
10.70
9.91
—0.79
Big farm
9.64
11.95
&2.31
in
marks
per ha
seed,
feed,
ferti-
liser
Why
so?
TNNMNNU
TTNNNNNNMMNNNNNNUU
]]
]]
]]
]]
]]
]]
]]
]]
]]
]]
]]
]]
]]
]]
!
!


To 4) Yields of four cereals (rye, wheat, oats and barley)
in double centners per ha.
1887-91 1893-97
NB:
(p. 51) small farm
20.46
20.66
& 0.20
the land on
(p. 73) medium farm
17.90
17.13
— 0.77
the big farm
(p. 92)
19.09
21.06
& 1.97
is worse
(p. 111) big farm
17.46
19.77
& 2.31
(p. 125)
Livestock feed (double centners)
Head in
terms of Price of
big
cattle
wheat
rye
barley
oats
Σ
cattle 1)
& 10.75
2,765 (p. 47)
1887-91
2.19
1.68
14.24
30.74
48.85
11.3
3,019 Small farm
1893-97
1.44
0.40
8.81
35.56
46.21
—
—
—
&
—
&26.8
9,474 (p. 74)
12.78
1.34
21.16
77.04
112.32
30.6
11,091 Medium farm I
14.26
6.38
29.75
99.87
150.26
&
&
&
&
&
&23.5
10,574 (p. 87)
12.71
2.39
59.24
94.33
168.97
25.9
10,971 Medium farm II
25.71
33.74
57.38
122.09
238.92
&
&
—
&
&
— 67.1
23,442 (p. 112)
18.61
0.63
15.90
128.83
163.97
66.6
23,300 Big farm
15.40
1.15
41.25
146.60
204.40
—
&
&
&
&
1) Huschke gives 9. 4 and 10 (p. 53), but this does
not follow from the rates he himself gives (p. 53).
TNMNU
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]


?
= Perennial
fodder plants?
Use of Land (ha)


Small
 farm
6.6

0.4


—
13.00 0.5
13.64
5.50
Medium
 farm I
33.5


12 (1)
(50.16)
15.50
&1.5 (2)


—
61.12
Fallow
Medium
 farm II
20.5
2.5

2.5

2.5
43.5
0.99
45.06
12.49
(Rape)
2.5
Big farm 45.0
6.0
8.0
6.0 Rape
2.0
mix-
3.0

5.08
108.42
(?)42.08
ture,
&
maize,
2.0
4.0 Beet-
&
etc.
root
25 (?3)
1) Perennial fodder plants ....
2) Mixture for fattening ....
3) Others, (p. 110) ? 101—76=25
Wheat, rye
oats & barley
Potatoes
(Peas, beans,
vetch) legumi-
nous plants
Fodder-beet
Fodder vetch,
maize, red clo-
ver&alphalfa
Sugar-beet
S (total)
Meadows
Σ of all land
Total area under
fodder (1&2&3)
!
!


Value of Livestock
α) 1st five-year
Price
period
of
 β) 1st five-year
Head in terms
aver-
period
of big cattle
marks
age head
of big
cattle
I (Small farm)
α)
53.85÷5=10.75
2,765.00
52.3810=
 (p. 47)
523÷2=261.5
β)
56.60÷5=11.32
3,019.00
110.45÷10=11.04
5,784
÷2=2,892.0
261.5
5,784÷110.45=
52.385=261.5
II (Medium farm)
α)
135.2÷5=26.8
9,474.0
 (p. 69)
β) 153.2÷5=30.6
11,091.0
287.4÷10=28.74
20,565
÷2=10,282.50
357.5
20,565÷287.4=
71.585=357.5
III (Medium farm) α)
70.6÷3=23.5
10,574.66
 (p. 87)
β)
129.7÷5=25.9
10,971.00
200.3÷8=25.04
21,545.66
21,545.66÷200.3=
107.585=537.5
÷2=10,772.83
430.0
107.588=
860÷2=430
IV (Big farm)
α)
335.5÷5=67.1
23,442.0
 (p. 107)
β) 333.25÷5=66.6
23,300.0
668.75÷10=66.8
46,742
÷2=23,371.00
349.5
46,742÷668.75=
69.985=349.5
P. 1  3 :
This is wrong.
2,892 should be
I— 13.64 ha 11
head of
divided by 11.04,
II— 61.10

big
etc. But the
III— 45.06

cattle
ratios do not
IV— 108.41

change.
Written not earlier than
September 1910-
not later than 1913
First published in 1938
Printed from the original
in Lenin Miscellany XXXI
!

III
MATERIAL FOR A STUDY
OF THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY
OF EUROPE AND THE UNITED STATES
1910-1916
